ALCTS members who attended the ALA Annual Conference 2006 in New Orleans provided these summary reports. We thank the volunteers who covered a program or preconference sponsored by ALCTS or one of its units. Their efforts enable the rest of us to benefit from their presentations. We regret that volunteers were not available to report on all the preconferences and programs.

Cataloging and Description of Cartographic Resources: From Parchment to Pixels, Paper to Digital

Hallie Pritchett, University of Minnesota

Cosponsored by ALCTS Cataloging and Classification Section and the Map and Geography Round Table (MAGERT), this full-day session covered the basics of cataloging sheet maps. The goals Paige Andrew from Pennsylvania State University and Susan Moore from the University of Northern Iowa set for the approximately 30 people in attendance were to gain confidence with this format, to learn some of the details of map cataloging and to have fun.

Andrew and Moore started by summarizing the decision-making process in cataloging sheet maps, including choice of main entry and title selection and/or creation. They next addressed the mathematical data associated with maps, which tends to be the biggest concern of catalogers. A great deal of time was spent on how to determine scale, projection and coordinates, including a worksheet designed to give participants hands-on experience in calculating scale. The afternoon session began with the physical description area, including determining the extent of a cartographic item and how to properly measure a map. Following discussion of the notes essential to cartographic catalog records, the presenters turned to the criteria used to match such records when looking for copy in WorldCat. After an explanation of how to create LC call numbers for maps using the G-class and the appropriate geographic Cutters, the final activity of the day was a hand-on cataloging session. Participants were given copies of the 2005 Official Highway Map of Louisiana to catalog on their own, with the presenters providing assistance as necessary.

This session offered an excellent and enjoyable overview of the basics of map cataloging and was particularly useful to those catalogers who have little or no experience working with cartographic materials. Andrew and Moore are excellent and knowledgeable presenters and very enthusiastic about maps and map cataloging. Participants came away with not only a greater understanding of this format, but also the skills and tools necessary to successfully catalog their library's sheet maps.

ERMS Implementation: Are We Taming the Electronic Tiger?

Betty Landesman, National Institutes of Health

This half-day preconference featured speakers representing five libraries in varying stages of implementation of an electronic resources management system (ERMS).

Rochelle Ballard, Digital Resources Coordinator at Princeton University, described her university's experience implementing an ERMS using Endeavor's Meridian software. Princeton uses Endeavor's Voyager integrated library system (ILS) and participated in a partnership with Endeavor to develop what became Meridian.

Princeton had been using multiple Access databases, spreadsheets, and even Word documents to perform different aspects of electronic resources management. They see the Meridian ERMS as a mechanism for "one-stop shopping", eliminating redundancy and duplicate efforts and providing wider dissemination of information. Ballard indicated that implementation involved a lot of work, but she feels that the result is so good it was worth it. They plan to roll the system out in the fall.

Barbara Weir, Assistant Director for Technical Services at Swarthmore College, described her library's desire to replace a homegrown system with VTLS' Verify system. Previously, data was kept in spreadsheets, paper files, email folders, and in staff members' heads. There was no way to display important license restrictions to public services staff.

Problems with the original version of Verify, including lack of good support for consortia and difficulties in saving data and adding new records, led VTLS to redesign the system. Weir discussed her library's customization of the fields taken from the Digital Library Foundation (DLF) Electronic Resources Management Initiative (ERMI) report as well as standards relating to electronic resources management (e.g., Onix and the Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI)). Weir feels that while their e-resources have not been tamed, they have calmed down a little. Future developments include data loads from any available source and sharing data with other systems (including their Innovative Interfaces system and SFX). Their implementation has been delayed by the redesign of Verify.

Celeste Feather, Electronic Resources Librarian at Ohio State University, described her library's experience as a development partner with Innovative Interfaces for its ERM module. OSU's ERM contained content from a former MySQL database and license records containing standard phrases for usage terms. Feather described the different record types available in Innovative's ERM. Implementation of ERM has allowed OSU to integrate e-resources management with the other Innovative Interfaces modules and to provide more useful data about their electronic resources and usage terms. Remaining challenges/decisions include better integration with and display in the OPAC, and improved compilation of usage statistics with SUSHI.

Debbie Nolan, Library Binding Institute

Aimed at senior level professionals and/or those charged with managing a library binding program, this module on library binding focused primarily on the administration of a library binding program through budgets and contracts. Participants learned about different kinds of binding programs and the associated costs. Quality control and problem solving were discussed. Participants also learned about value added library binding services that can be incorporated into their institution's library binding program.

Andrew Hart, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, discussed a framework for management decisions related to library binding. In his introductory remarks, Hart reminded everyone that bookbinding is so firmly rooted in the history of libraries that it may seem almost invisible. It is second nature. He then relayed a few points to consider about the nature of print vs. online publications including:

Monographs are still published and acquired almost entirely in print.

Serials are moving toward digital publishing but the transition is far from complete.

Digitization of retrospective collections is proceeding faster than many in libraries predicted - but much slower and less comprehensively than the public expects. Sweeping projects (e.g., Google) have notable gaps, such as content outside the public domain and materials that are difficult to scan and present online.

Despite this, patrons want more online access. The use of print is changing, but not uniformly. Different categories of print resources have declining, steady, or even increased demand (e.g., due to higher visibility through digital projects).

Hart also pointed out that library budgets do not grow fast enough to keep up with the expanding scope of collections and services. Binding is one of many valuable activities competing for limited resources. He noted the changes currently faced by the library binding industry including:

New service areas, such as print-on-demand and edition binding, are growing.

Well-informed decisions about binding, which is still a significant activity and a cost center for most libraries, require an understanding of how binding fits into the bigger picture of library operations as well as a working knowledge of how books function and the range of services offered by modern binders.

Hart then discussed the importance of binding in context and the need to think about the kind of binding program needed and the associated costs. He elaborated on the "one size does not fill all" approach and the functions of binding including:

Increase durability for intended use.

Preserve intellectual integrity by keeping related items together and in a fixed order.

Make materials easier to identify and handle.

Reduce extent of loss in disasters.

Following this was an overview of relevant costs including what is considered a base cost and what usually costs extra. Some companies lean toward a la carte pricing while others tend to cover more in the base cost for the type of binding. To make a fair comparison of prices offered by different binders it is important to look carefully at the details of what is covered in the base cost and what is an additional charge.

Hart encouraged a closer look at staff costs related to the binding program. As with any contracted service, the library has to manage a vendor relationship, process financial transactions, inspect for quality, select, prepare, and track materials sent for binding. Centralizing binding-related activity can improve efficiency and develop a higher level of expertise through specialization among staff. Decentralizing activity can spread work over a number of existing positions. A binding program may function best with a combination of centralized and decentralized staffing models.

To maximize your binding budget, Hart discussed the following concepts:

How much to bind.

Comprehensive binding for all soft-cover materials (serial and monograph) is ideal, with exceptions for unusual items that would lose value or functionality through binding.

Selective binding is common practice for controlling expenditures but criteria and methods for selection vary considerably in the field.

When to bind.

Just in case: Prevent damage and improve efficiency by binding before use. Just in time: Minimize damage and reduce cost by deferring binding until evidence of need (e.g., condition, level of use).

Levels of service.

In lieu of, or in addition to, reducing the number of books bound, costs may be controlled by using different products and services. For example, are all books with intact sewing recased, or only those with narrow margins, glossy paper, weak paper, or other characteristics that affect the value of a less expensive adhesive binding? Are all monographs bound in buckram or would c-cloth or another less expensive material be acceptable for some? Are there premium services like custom collation that could be cut without causing a problem for quality or workload within the library?

Weighing consequences.

Is the cost of a calculated risk or an error greater or less than the cost of preventing it? Are the potential or likely consequences of a decision acceptable? For example, inspection for the smallest possible defects in every bound volume usually requires an unjustifiable expense in staff time. Conversely, failure to inspect materials for major defects and errors such as putting a book in the wrong case, can lead to an unacceptable loss of access for patrons.

A case study of the deferred binding program at UNC-Chapel Hill was then presented. Budget pressure prompted review of long-standing comprehensive binding policy. Conclusions included:

Our binding program is shaped by our goals for patron service, tolerance for risk of damage, nature of the materials we acquire, and overall library budget.

Once goals have been established or modified, the inflation-adjusted binding budget should fluctuate according to changes in the amount and nature of materials acquired.

Risks are acceptable for shelving many paperbacks without a hardcover binding until there is evidence of need.

Circulation is a good and simple indication of likely use in the future. Waiting for damage before binding exceeds our acceptable level of risk and adds costs for subjective evaluation and repair for damaged books.

Savings derived by complex procedures to carefully target binding to materials with the greatest need or perceived value can be quickly overshadowed by higher labor costs, especially when item-level decisions are required from more senior staff and professional librarians.

Observations from six years of deferred binding at UNC-Chapel Hill conclude:

Approximately half of new monographs meet our criteria for binding before patron use.

Approximately 7 percent of the deferred paperbacks sent for binding after circulation show some degree of damage, primarily bent covers. A very small number are missing some content (.05 percent) but in all cases we have successfully replaced the missing or damaged pages).

Moving from comprehensive to this approach to deferred binding results in deceptive windfall of savings in the first year. As the population of soft-cover materials in the stacks increases so, too, does the number eligible for binding after circulation. The ratio of paperbacks sent to the stacks without binding in our first year was 94:1. By the sixth year of deferred binding, the ratio seemed to be leveling off at 3.25:1.

We began specifying paperback preferred for our largest approval plans at about the same time we began deferred binding. One action increased the absolute number of paperbacks eligible for binding while the other decreased the percentage of paperbacks selected for binding. The result was a net savings but it was important to include binding in the calculation for a paperback preferred acquisition policy.

Most soft-cover materials suitable for in-house binding do not meet our criteria for deferral. Therefore the budget savings for commercial binding are not matched by decreased work for Preservation staff. To the contrary, the procedures associated with deferred binding consume the time saved by having fewer books to prepare for commercial binding.

Hart concluded by suggesting that attention to binding often begins with a financial concern. Good decisions about binding are made with an understanding of available options, costs, impact on staff in multiple departments, and potential benefits and consequences for patrons today and in the future.

Julie Arnott, Notre Dame University Libraries, and J.C. Noyes, Bridgeport National Bindery, discussed communication and collaboration (Getting What You Want Through Contract Negotiation and Compliance) and value added services provided by library binders. Arnott discussed the elements of a binding contract. A sample contract was emailed to attendees following the workshop. She and Noyes also presented a PowerPoint presentation and discussion on value added services offered by library binders including phases boxes, double tray boxes, preservation facsimile, conservation services, conservation binding, deacidification, polyester encapsulation, printing and binding theses, shelf preparation, and print on demand services. Noyes discussed the steps involved at the bindery itself--when a book arrives to be library bound- from the time it arrives to the time it leaves the bindery to go back to the library. Noyes emphasized that many hands are involved in the library binding process to ensure quality and to meet the unique specifications requested for each bound piece.

Module Two: What, When and How to Bind: The Decision Making Process and Factors to Consider

Aimed at senior and front line staff, this module on library binding focused primarily on making appropriate binding decisions. Participants learned about the parts of a book, leaf attachment, repairs and how to prepare books to go to the bindery. They also participated in an interactive exercise with sample materials to be bound.

Debra Nolan, Library Binding Institute (LBI), began the afternoon session with a PowerPoint presentation on the Library Binding Institute. She discussed the history of LBI and the library binding industry. Nolan also discussed recent changes within the industry and expected industry trends. Nolan also briefly discussed the history of library binding standards, including the most recent ANSI/NISO/LBI Library Binding Standard.

Paul Parisi, ACME Bookbinding, followed with a brief update on the "Guide to the Library Binding Standard," which he co-authored with Jan Merrill Oldham. Parisi noted there were extensive changes to bring the guide in line with the current standard. The guide will be available in hard copy from ALCTS and in PDF from LBI's web site once the update is complete.

Jean Ann Croft, University of Pittsburgh, discussed library binding decision making factors and referred to the Three Sample Decision Trees in the "Guide to the LBI Standard" by Jan Merrill-Oldham and Paul Parisi.

Kate Contakos, New York University, presented "What, When and How to Bind," beginning with an overview of leaf attachments. For each type of leaf attachment, she discussed the material that was best suited. Contakos and Croft then discussed steps for preparing journals and monographs for commercial binding. They emphasized the importance of inspection and quality control upon return to the library.

The day closed with an interactive exercise with sample materials to enable participants to implement the concepts and information learned in the workshop.

GIS Cataloging

Hallie Pritchett, University of Minnesota

This half-day session, co-sponsored by the ALCTS Cataloging and Classification Section and the Map and Geography Round Table (MAGERT), was a continuation of the previous day's session on Cataloging and Description of Cartographic Resources. Led by Mary Lynette Larsgaard, University of California-Santa Barbara, it focused on the issues and challenges of cataloging geospatial data, defined as cartographic resources in an electronic carrier.

Larsgaard started by highlighting the major differences between hard copy maps and those available as electronic resources; in particular, she noted that geospatial data takes longer to catalog than other formats. After a brief overview of the basics of geospatial data for catalogers, including explanations of such concepts as latitude/longitude, projection, scale and grids, Larsgaard turned to the basics of electronic cartographic materials. She discussed the types of files and data common to such items, mentioning the Library of Congress guidelines for distinguishing electronic resources that are primarily cartographic in nature from those that are not. Next she addressed the MARC21 fields specifically intended for cartographic materials in electronic form in detail, noting how important the technical information provided in these fields is to users. Larsgaard concluded with a comparison of cataloging versus metaloging, noting that while metadata is intended to be created by the data producers at the time the data is produced rather than after the fact by catalogers, metadata and catalog records share many of the same fields. The morning ended with Paige Andrew and Susan Moore, who gave an overview of subject analysis for maps and provided lists of common topical subject headings, subdivisions and free-floating subdivisions. The session concluded with a review of the previous day's discussion of LC classification for maps, including another demonstration of how to create an LC call number using the G-class.

In only a half day, this session supplied a tremendous amount of useful information about the intricacies of geospatial data, an increasingly common resource in libraries. Larsgaard clarified many of the misconceptions associated with this format and gave participants a much better understanding of the issues involved in working with and cataloging electronic cartographic resources. Andrew and Moore's explanation of subject analysis and classification was also quite helpful and served as an appropriate conclusion to the both days' sessions.

Cataloging Correctly for Kids Begins with the Right Resources: Tools of Our Trade

Oksana Kraus, Cleveland Public Library

On Friday June 23, a small number of librarians attended the ALCTS preconference, "Cataloging Correctly for Kids: Tools of our Trade." This preconference was based on the 4th edition of Cataloging Correctly for Kids (ALA Editions, 2005), and the Web publication "Resources for Catalogers of Children's Materials." Both these publications are products of the Cataloging of Children's Materials Committee.

Oksana Kraus, Cleveland Public Library, Chair of the committee, presented a short background of the 4th edition of Cataloging Correctly for Kids and the importance of having the right cataloging resources available. She emphasized that not only do they make our jobs easier, but it also validates the uniqueness of cataloging of children's materials. She also introduced the speakers, all experts in the cataloging of children's materials.

Lynne Jacobsen, Head of Technical Services, Warren-Newport Public Library, explored the different ways that children search library catalogs and how this affects the practice of cataloging of children's materials. Lynne pointed out that once we understand how children search and retrieve information, we will have a better idea of how to meet their needs. However, whenever we catalog, we must produce quality entries. This theme was expanded by Jane Gilchrist, Team Leader, Children's Literature Team, Library of Congress, who discussed the Annotated Card program, its history, its work, and its importance to our work as catalogers of children's materials. The LC CIP program was also discussed, and some participants agreed that it was an excellent source of cataloging information.

Subject access and authority control were two important topics at this preconference. Dr. Joanna Fountain, Sam Houston University, and Kay Lowell, Archival Services Librarian, University of Northern Colorado, emphasized the importance of standardized terms, consistency, and access points of information retrieval by children. The attending school media specialists reaffirmed that they rely more heavily on the Sears List of Subject Headings in their cataloging rather than LCSH. With the suspension of series authority records by LC, the consequences of this decision were discussed. This issue merits further exploration since many children's books are now published as a series.

Vickie Frierson-Adams, University of Mississippi, Oxford, illustrated how to enhance bibliographic records in an academic setting. She also discussed a study she conducted in 2000 to determine how juvenile collections in academic libraries are currently cataloged, housed, and used.

With the proliferation of use of the Internet, this committee has developed a web publication, Web Resources for Children's Cataloging, available online via ALCTS Web publications. This resource was developed by Patricia Ratkovich, Catalog Librarian, University of Alabama, and Lynne Jacobsen, with input from committee members.

The small number of attendees lent to an informal atmosphere which allowed for an exchange of ideas and exploration of specific questions and concerns. The committee hopes that the information gained at this preconference will make the job of catalogers of children's materials easier and more enjoyable.

ALCTS Forum on the Library of Congress Series Authority Record Decision

Rhonda Marker, Rutgers University

Moderator Cynthia Whitacre, Department Manager, Metadata Quality, OCLC and Chair, ALCTS Cataloging and Classification Section, opened the forum by briefly recounting the key events surrounding the Library of Congress's decision on series in bibliographic records. There has been a great deal of discussion in the United States and internationally-so much so that ALCTS invited six speakers to participate in this special forum.

Beacher Wiggins, Director for Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access, Library of Congress, reaffirmed the decision made by the Bibliographic Access managers in late spring 2006. He noted that LC's decision had met with unparalleled opposition. He reported that LC is committed to upholding the highest standard of bibliographic control, but stressed that they will continue to reassess where LC can make changes. He cited the report by Karen Calhoun as an area where LC will look for change. No study has proved user dependence on series to gain access to content, he said, though there is universal agreement that series information is useful.

As concessions, LC delayed the implementation date and also made a few exceptions to the original decision. In speaking of the decision itself, Wiggins asserted that it is the right decision for LC at this time. Addressing the criticism that LC did not consult with others prior to making this decision, Wiggins said that they did not expect feedback in 2006 to differ from that expressed in 1993-1994. Wiggins acknowledged that the short interval between the announcement and the implementation, even with the month extension, might still not be enough time for some. He went on to assert that the outcome was still the same.

In conclusion, Wiggins declared that this was the right decision for LC at this time; that LC will continue as a full PCC member and the PCC Secretariat; and that LC is committed to its leadership role in the national and international community.

Mark Watson, Associate University Librarian, Collections and Access Division, University of Oregon and Chair, Program for Cooperative Cataloging [PCC], made several comments on PCC's response to the LC decision. PCC is a cooperative program in which a local library, including LC, can respond to changing user needs. Watson spoke directly about the many statements that criticized LC. He asked the audience whether "PCC" is the Program for "Cooperative" Cataloging, or the Program for Cataloging-in-the-LC-Way. That distinction might be blurred for some because until now there has been little difference between the PCC standards and LC cataloging standards. Watson urged the audience to move away from "LCdolatry" and its counterpart, LC-bashing.

Next to speak was Glenn Patton, Director of WorldCat Quality Management, OCLC, who said OCLC will make some changes to how LC records are processed in WorldCat. OCLC will merge traced series from existing records into incoming LC records. LC records that are not coded as "pcc" will not overwrite an OCLC record that is coded "pcc." In addition, the OCLC Quality Control staff will continue to respond to requests and questions. OCLC staff in their CIP upgrade unit in New Jersey (housed at the Blackwell's Book Services warehouse) will make changes as necessary to series headings and series treatments in CIP records. Both the Quality Control staff and the CIP upgrade unit staff are NACO-independent and trained to create series authority records. Patton received a warm welcome from the mostly partisan crowd.

Andrea Kappler, Cataloging Manager, Evansville Vanderburgh Public Library, Evansville, Indiana, representing public libraries, gathered responses from INCOLSA-L (Indiana Cooperative Library Services Authority) and AUTOCAT, both supporting and opposing LC's decision. Of particular concern are the many children's books written in series and this decision's effect on public libraries. Public libraries do not have enough staff to do original series authority work. They are trying hard to keep up with cataloging standards as it is.

The serials cataloging community was represented by Diane Boehr, Head of Cataloging, National Library of Medicine, who addressed the process by which LC's decision was made as much as the decision itself. Boehr decried the lack of evidence-based data behind the decision. The value of tracing unnumbered series deserves investigation. Boehr criticized LC for continuing the quoted note and untraced series practices. Boehr offered further suggestions for streamlining SARs. NLM expects to continue to keep numbered series under authority control, as well as record the series statement as it appears on the piece. In conclusion, Boehr expressed the hope that RDA (Resources for Description and Access) would not merely continue our current practices in a glitzy package, but that it will be the result of evidence-based practices.

The final speaker, Gary Strawn, Authorities Librarian, Northwestern University, shared a two-page handout that summarized an experimental program he wrote to convert untraced series to traced series in a catalog record. (Also see the full report.) Strawn developed the program as an attempt to determine whether libraries could somehow make up for LC's decision using automation. Strawn described the methodology and process he used to come up with a corpus of records, test his program, and evaluate its effectiveness. Although he found some weakness in minor details, he concluded, "it does not look so bad from my point of view." The appreciative audience overwhelmingly agreed.

The comments and questions from the audience were generally critical of LC's decision. Audience members were appreciative of the panel for speaking out, and also expressed personal support for Library of Congress staffers. However, it was clear that the audience was concerned about the effects of this decision on the local copy cataloging workflow, and on public libraries in particular. Despite assurances from both Wiggins and Watson that LC will continue to be a vital member of the PCC, it was clear that the audience was uncertain about LC's role in the PCC and in general. Although in the minority of those who spoke, at least one person challenged the audience to realize that change is inevitable. We need to move to a truly cooperative cataloging model as expressed in the PCC.

Area Studies Librarians: Do You PCC? What the Program for Cooperative Cataloging Can Do for You!

Dawn Lawson, New York University

This program, designed to focus awareness of all aspects of PCC (BIBCO, CONSER, NACO, and SACO), was sponsored by the Cataloging and Classification Section's Committee on Asian and African Materials. The panel included practitioners who each discussed one of the four PCC programs. Moderator Ana Cristán, Cooperative Cataloging Specialist at the Library of Congress, brought a helpful insider's perspective and useful up-to-date information to the proceedings.

James Lin, Head of Technical Services at Harvard University's Harvard-Yenching Library, gave a brief overview of his institution's involvement in PCC and then discussed the SACO program and its relevance for area studies librarians. Catalogers of East Asian materials frequently tell him that the LC subject headings they need do not exist, at which point he urges them to submit them as SACO proposals. He advised prospective proposal submitters to bear in mind that English is generally the preferred language used in subject headings and also to be sure to use the proper Romanization scheme-for example, Pinyin for Chinese, rather than the formerly used Wade-Giles system-when their proposed headings do include non-English terms. He is also frequently asked whether a NACO funnel exists for East Asian name authority record proposals; no such funnel exists at this time.

The next panelist, Joyce Bell, Catalog Division Coordinator, Princeton University, serves as both NACO coordinator for Princeton and as the head of the Arabic NACO funnel. She outlined the steps involved in developing proposed headings, emphasizing that the use of OCLC and RLIN makes creating them a straightforward process. Bell has trained catalogers for NACO participation in a variety of venues-at her institution and other locations as well as via email in the case of institutions in Egypt. She enthusiastically recommended that librarians who are not already doing so consider participating in this cooperative activity, emphasizing that it is easy to get started and it is rewarding because it offers participants the potential to influence both cataloging practices in their own field and national name authority standards as well.

A member of CONSER since 1991, Steve Shadle, Serials Cataloger, University of Washington, shared his knowledge about that aspect of PCC. In addition to providing an overview of basic CONSER facts and figures, he noted that approximately 21,000 of the 1 million records in the CONSER database contain non-Roman scripts, mostly Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. Cyrillic, Hebrew, and Greek scripts are coming to CONSER, and there is a pressing need for records for South Asian serials as well as for serials in African languages besides Afrikaans. Shadle concluded with a humorous, passionate plea urging librarians in the audience to participate in CONSER, which he phrased in the terms "Don't Be Like Eddie." (Eddie, a real-life colleague of Shadle's, had given Shadle permission to use him as an anti-poster-child for the CONSER cause.) He explained that, although Eddie creates excellent standards-compliant serial records, he resists becoming a CONSER participant because of the misconception that it would add significant time to his workflow. As did all of the presenters, Shadle emphasized that the time it takes to do this cooperative work is amply rewarded by the professional and personal satisfaction that results, not to mention the overall time savings that cooperation brings.

Andrea Stamm, Head of the Catalog Department, Northwestern University, spoke on the topic "Why BIBCO? A Win-Win Situation for Catalogers and Managers." She usefully classified the ten PCC membership benefits listed on the program's Web site into the categories: (1) shaping the future of cataloging, (2) alleviating local burdens, and (3) other perks. Stamm also shared an additional list of tangible benefits of PCC participation, including raising cataloger morale, lowering the cost of copy cataloging while improving the quality of records, and saving time that original catalogers can use to explore other intellectual work, such as cataloging new formats. Her remarks were an eloquent, effective amplification of the advantages of PCC participation mentioned in the course of the earlier presentations.

Publisher Packages in the E-World: New Roles for Libraries, Publishers, and Agents

Patrick Carr, Mississippi State University

"Publisher Packages in the E-World: New Roles for Libraries, Publishers, and Agents" assembled a panel of six recognized leaders representing the perspectives of the library, publisher, and subscription agent. This panel discussed their visions of the evolving roles that libraries, publishers, and agents will play in a future dominated by the licensing terms of "big deal" agreements and other publisher packages of e-resources.

Stephen Bosch, Materials Budget, Procurement, and Licensing Librarian, University of Arizona, gave an overview of the complexities of e-resource acquisition and management and the changing partnerships between libraries, publishers, and agents. Bosch weighted the pros and cons of working with an agent in a future dominated by publisher packages and argued that, if agents wish to remain a vital stakeholder, they will need to demonstrate that they provide significant value-added services. October Ivins of eContent Solutions focused on the varying concerns of publishers of differing sizes and examined the impact that destabilization and competition are having on the players in the e-resource marketplace and on users.

The following two presenters were both representatives of larger publishers. Robert Boissy of Springer Publishing Company emphasized the uncertainties that exist in the evolving e-environment. He stated that libraries, publishers, and agents are all "on the bubble" and will have their futures shaped by prevalent market forces. Tony McSeán, a representative of Elsevier, stated that in Elsevier's view, an agent does not contribute any significant value to the e-resource subscription process. McSeán discussed how publishers are shifting in their orientation from order fulfillment to customer service. In order to enhance their services and maintain direct communication with subscribers, publishers wish to work directly with libraries and are wary of intermediaries that may hinder this direct line of communication.

The program concluded with two presentations by representatives of subscription agents: Tina Feick of Swets Information Services and Dan Tonkery of EBSCO Subscription Services. Both representatives argued that, as neutral parties, agents are uniquely positioned to reduce complexity and increase efficiency in libraries' acquisition and management of e-resources. Agents add value to these processes through numerous services that assist libraries throughout an e-resource's lifecycle and by acting as a leader in the development of standards (e.g., SUSHI) that increase the interoperability of important data sets.

ALCTS and Continuing Education: How to Build a Successful CE Course

Ginger Williams, Mississippi State University

Karen LeTarte, Chair of the ALCTS Education Committee, explained that the ALCTS Education Committee coordinates continuing education and that ALCTS is offering financial incentives to develop courses. She introduced three speakers to discuss developing content, teaching adult learners, and using technology.

Trisha Davis pointed out that course developers do not have to be content experts. They need to be willing to do the work and find a content expert to help. Continuing education courses should be simple, addressing three to five major topics. They must be targeted to a specific audience such as acquisitions novices or experienced monograph cataloguers. Course content can be adapted to many delivery methods. For example, the Fundamentals of Acquisitions course originated as an in-person course, migrated to television, and is now a Web course.

Heather Dray opened her talk on teaching by pointing out that the course developer may not be the teacher. Trainers who love to teach can learn content. Good trainers pay attention to cues that tell them if students understand the material or whether they need to adapt the instruction. Web-based delivery requires the trainer to make more effort to elicit interaction and feedback, but laughing about the difficulties helps the class relax and interact more.

Karen Wetzel discussed using technology. The ALCTS staff handles the technology of Web-based courses, allowing the course developer to focus on content. Technology can be used to promote communication and interaction with course content. For example, chat sessions allow groups to discuss problems and chat logs allow students who did not participate to review the discussion later.

The presenters answered several questions about how to make continuing education effective in different environments. Karen LeTarte encouraged the audience to volunteer to develop courses and to send course ideas to ALCTS Executive Director Charles Wilt.

Open Forum on the "New" Catalog

Dawn Lawson, New York University

This program featured presentations by Holly Johnson, Head of Collection Services, Howard County Library and Kristin Antelman, Associate Director for Digital Library Administration, North Carolina State University (NCSU) Libraries. Moderator Cynthia Clark, Director of Technical Services, New York Public Library, began by placing the program in context with a reference to the report prepared for the Library of Congress by Associate University Librarian Karen Calhoun of Cornell University, which assessed the impact of the Internet on the traditional online public access catalog (OPAC), concluding that library patrons want easy-to-use catalogs that are accessible on the Web. The institutions of both presenters at the forum have implemented "next generation" Web interfaces to their libraries' cataloging data, with functions and features that differ from those of the traditional OPAC.

In the case of Howard County Library, the product used is the Library Company's AquaBrowser. Johnson described it as a "customer-centric" cataloging interface that did not require patrons to think like a librarian when searching. The product, which was originally developed in the Netherlands, can be integrated with any integrated library system. Johnson demonstrated Howard County's implementation, which is with their SirsiDynix system. They use a one-search-box interface, and the system has built-in spell check and stemming capability. One panel of the results screen is devoted to a visual display of synonyms for the term searched in the form of a colorful word cloud that can be easily manipulated by means of mouse clicks. Another panel allows the user to refine the results by format, subject, language, geographic location, and many other facets. The library's subscription databases are queried at the same time as the library catalog; database results appear in another panel. Regarding the back-end processing, Johnson explained that AquaBrowser uses its own copy of the cataloging data, which is updated nightly. At present, the interface includes a tab labeled "Traditional Catalog" that takes users from the AquaBrowser interface to the standard OPAC view, but the library's future vision is for AquaBrowser to be the sole destination for patron searching.

The new interface in use at NCSU is made by Endeca, a company whose customer base, interestingly, includes Wal-Mart and Home Depot, as well as Barnes and Noble. Antelman emphasized that in addition to being difficult to use, particularly when compared to search engines like Google, existing OPACs do not leverage the rich data that exists in cataloging records. Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) in particular, she noted, should be browsed or linked from, rather than searched by patrons. As in the case of Howard County's implementation of AquaBrowser, NCSU's Endeca works from a full extract of its library's MARC data, which is refreshed nightly.

NCSU's Endeca interface has two search boxes: one labeled "Search for words" and the other labeled "Search begins with..." The former performs only Endeca keyword searches; the latter does searches in the traditional OPAC style. Results lists include refinement by facets similar to those of AquaBrowser. In addition, a Browse page allows browsing of the entire collection starting from the A-Z levels of the Library of Congress Classification (displays again include the facets), as well as browsing of books the library has acquired in the last week.

Antelman advised would-be implementers of a next-generation catalog to remember that a first attempt does not have to absolutely perfect and that it's important not to get bogged down by exceptional cases. NCSU's future plans for Endeca include FRBRized displays and the use of FAST (Faceted Access to Subject Terms) in place of LCSH. In addition, a broad range of usage statistics is collected and reviewed regularly with an eye toward future enhancements.

Steve Carrico, University of Florida

This program provided three speakers with divergent viewpoints to discuss this important aspect of collection development. Charles Willett, editor of Counterpoise, observed that the program description took the premise that academic library collections "no longer pay enough attention to alternative viewpoints," but he believes that they never did. Willett cited a 1989 study that showed only a few top-tier universities in the South held 60 to 90 percent of recently published alternative books, while second-tier universities and community colleges held few or none of them. It is Willett's contention that if a follow-up study were done today, those distinctions would still hold true.

Bob Nardini of Yankee Book Peddler spoke of his many years of experience working with academic libraries, witnessing firsthand the bulk of monograph acquisitions in academic libraries evolving from title-by-title book selection into large-scale approval plans. Judging it to be in the best interest of book vendors to offer diversity in the publishers and books they sell, Nardini cited several studies showing relatively insignificant overlap in academic library collections. After providing several examples of award-winning small and alternative press publications Yankee has supplied to academic libraries, Nardini concluded "I don't see homogenization going on."

Bart Harloe, University Librarian, St. Lawrence University, New York, provided details on his library's browsing collection, a modest browsing area separate from the main stacks but still situated within the Owen D. Young Library's main level. The collection consists of alternative and small press publications that are displayed in bookstore fashion, and is routinely updated with newly arrived titles. According to Harloe, this browsing collection is extremely popular with the St. Lawrence students and faculty. Patrons are allowed to check out books from this browsing collection, and the relatively high percentage of these books being circulated confirms its success.

FAST: A New System of Subject Access for Cataloging and Metadata

Jen Wolfe, University of Iowa

Sponsored by the ALCTS Cataloging and Classification Section, this session on OCLC's FAST (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology) initiative included an overview from developers and reactions from the library community on this work-in-progress to create a simplified syntax for subject cataloging.

Ed O'Neill, Consulting Research Scientist, OCLC, and Lois Mai Chan, Professor, University of Kentucky School of Library and Information Science and Project Consultant, OCLC, summarized the rationale behind FAST: traditional approaches to subject cataloging are breaking down in the face of phenomenal growth of electronic resources, the emergence of metadata cataloging, and a lack of skilled subject catalogers. FAST addresses the need for a new approach by combining rich semantics-vocabulary terms are taken from LCSH-with simplified rules of application. The Web-based FAST authorities database contains approximately 1.5 million terms, mostly culled from subject strings in WorldCat bibliographic records that have been parsed into facets such as topical, geographic, and chronological. These facets form a fully established vocabulary requiring no construction of headings as with LCSH. Another advantage of FAST is its hierarchical, unabbreviated geographic headings, which allow improved browsing and keyword searching. Next steps for the initiative include further testing and development, and completion of a FAST manual.

Qiang Jin, Cataloging Librarian and NACO Coordinator, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, serves on an ALCTS-sponsored subcommittee to explore the scope, suitability and adequacy of FAST. After examining a test collection of 5,000 bibliographic records cataloged with FAST, the subcommittee concluded that the "aboutness" of an item is sufficiently covered by the new subject terminology. However, they also found that the parsing of LCSH strings into facets can result in headings that create ambiguity and a loss of context. Jin called for further research on a larger scale to determine how much of the precision and recall of LCSH has been lost or gained with FAST.

Arlene Taylor, Professor Emerita, Department of Library and Information Science, University of Pittsburgh, reported the results of a project she conducted with her cataloging students to compare sample searches in two test collections of bibliographic records: a set with LCSH headings, and the same set with subject headings converted per the FAST conversion schema. Differences in retrieval were caused by changes such as pluralization (an occurrence of "library" in LCSH became "libraries" in FAST), common usage ("study and teaching (higher)" vs. "higher education") and abbreviation ("U.S." vs. "United States").

Shannon Hoffman, Subject Authorities Librarian, Brigham Young University, concluded the presentations with a summary of three digital library projects conducted at her institution using FAST. Since the projects had insufficient funding for cataloging librarians, student workers and other non-specialists were used to create metadata records, which were then reviewed by professional staff. Hoffman reported that student workers found the FAST authorities database easy to use, and the headings they assigned were sufficient for the most part. However, students did tend to choose overly broad headings (e.g., the book title contains the words "ornamental plants," and the student selected the heading "plants"), which she noted was less of a terminology problem and more of a training issue.

The panel concluded with questions from the audience, with some expressing concern about FAST's lack of precise, highly specific headings, and the loss of relationships between LCSH and LCC. One audience member wondered if cataloging staff, under fire to produce more, faster and cheaper records, might be pressured to drop LCSH altogether. O'Neill replied that FAST was designed as an alternative to LCSH, not a replacement, for use with nontraditional materials that would otherwise be inaccessible or uncontrolled. Jin promised more information in the future, as the ALCTS subcommittee continues to evaluate FAST for its final report.

Mold and Its Effects: What You Need to Know to Protect Your Staff and Your Collections

Elizabeth Rodrigues, MLS Candidate, University of South Florida

PARS presented three speakers to discuss prevention of and recovery from mold outbreaks in library collections. Tina Mason, Preservation Field Services Manager at SOLINET, first gave an overview of the topic. Mold is always present, waiting for opportune conditions to take hold. When mold blossoms, it takes less than 48 hours for an outbreak to become serious enough to require professional mitigation. Prevention through constant monitoring of temperature, humidity, and air flow, is vital. Her detailed PowerPoint presentation, including discussion of optimal relative humidity levels and mold identification techniques, and can be viewed at www.solinet.net/emplibfile/mold-2006.pdf .

The best preventive measures, though, will not always suffice. Nancy E. Kraft, Head of Preservation at University of Iowa Libraries, and Emilie Leumas, Archivist of the Diocese of Baton Rouge, presented mold case studies at their institutions. Kraft detailed an outbreak in UI's special collections room during the summer of 2002, caused by a single weekend's air conditioning malfunction. The recovery process was lengthy and bureaucratic, and lessons learned include the importance of having a mold recovery plan and action team, including university employees both from the library and supporting departments such as public relations, in place before an outbreak occurs. Kraft also stressed that workers dealing with mold should always take the precaution of using gloves, masks, and protective eyewear. Some toxic molds can cause illness from a single, brief exposure and all molds can cause illness with prolonged exposure.

The importance of emergency planning was also emphasized by Emilie Leumas, who led the effort to recover southern Louisiana church records after Hurricane Katrina. The attempts to locate and restore these unique historical documents have taken months, and Leumas's staff had to devise creative methods of repairing mold, water, and fire damage on a massive scale. Above all, Leumas recommends that every institution have updated disaster plans that include steps for securing staff, building, and materials and communication procedures for after the crisis.

Understanding Series and the Bibliographic Record:
A Preview of an ALCTS/PCC Workshop

Brian McCafferty, Wabash College

At the ALA annual conference in Washington, D.C. in 2007, a joint task force of the ALCTS Cataloging and Classification Section (CCS) and the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) will present a two-day preconference focusing on series authority records and series treatment in bibliographic records. The purpose of the preconference is to provide catalogers with the knowledge needed to manage series authority control in their own catalogs. It does not replace or duplicate PCC's NACO training. This program in New Orleans served as a preview to that preconference.

Task force member Iris Wolley presented elements of the training relating to series authority records. She discussed the uses of MARC fields in series authority records for headings, references, numbering, publishers, local treatment, analysis, tracing, classification, and MARC coding conventions. She then previewed the section covering application of the Anglo American Cataloging Rules regarding transcription of series statements and how series authority records relate to series access points in bibliographic records.

The full preconference will cover these topics as well as workflow issues, a more in-depth consideration of seriality, local series treatment decisions, and indexing. The task force is also developing training materials to address series in audiovisual, music, and legal materials that will not be specifically covered in the preconference and a briefer series training module for acquisitions, reference and other librarians who are users of series information but not creators of series authorities or bibliographic records.

Gina Costello, Louisiana State University

The ALCTS Networked Resources and Metadata Interest Group sponsored this session, which explored the complicated realm of digital rights management (DRM). The speakers touched on issues related to institutional repositories and copyright. The session concluded with a panel discussion with individuals on all sides of the DRM issue.

Denise Troll Covey, Principal Librarian for Special Projects, Carnegie Mellon University, discussed the roles of rights holders, rights mediators, users, rights creators and enforcers, and rights definers and interpreters. A 2005 CNI survey of 97 U.S. institutions with institutional repositories indicates that there is not a lot of content being added. She cited copyright concerns as a barrier to contribution and use of institutional repositories. She discussed the pitfalls of DRM and recommended that we work toward "genuine rights management" by devising ways to recognize constitutional rights, manage rights with copyright law and licensing, and establish a new structure where rights holders, mediators, and users can assert their rights.

Carol Hixson, Head of Metadata and Digital Library Services, University of Oregon (UO), discussed UO's Scholar's Bank, a three-year-old DSpace-based institutional repository. Some of the goals of Scholar's Bank are to improve access to and discoverability of materials, highlight individual achievement, and establish connections between resources. UO established policies to govern how material will be submitted to, revised in, or withdrawn from Scholar's Bank. Hixson called for flexible system administration with more granular authorization and institutional support for long-term preservation of the institutional repository.

Karen Coyle, a digital library consultant and Director of Publisher Relations at the Copyright Clearance Center, spoke about XrML, Open Digital Rights Management (ODRL), and Creative Commons (CC). XrML, Extensible Rights Mark-up Language is a universal method for managing rights of digital objects and services. Disagreements between ContentGuard, the company that owns XrML, and the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) over the rights of DR languages have prevented more development in DRM. Coyle cited the California Digital Library as an example of an institution that provides better information about copyright for items. She advocated using CC for digital work and providing users more information about copyright and the public domain.

Serials Standards Update Forum

Doug Kiker, University of Florida

This program was co-sponsored by ALCTS, the Serials Standards Committee, and Swets Information Services. The three invited speakers were Regina Romano Reynolds, United States International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) Center of the Library of Congress, Kathy Klemperer, representing EDItEUR, and Tim Jewell, University of Washington representing the Digital Library Federation's Electronic Resource Management Initiative (DLF ERMI).

Reynolds discussed the current revision of ISSN that features the proposed Linking ISSN (ISSN-L). Although terms for ISSN-L have changed recently (t-ISSN, Collocating Number, Medium-neutral ISSN), this new proposal, currently in a voting period with the International Standards Organization (ISO), should help to provide identification for serials at both the product and title levels. Two important functions of ISSN-L will be to support services for search and delivery across media versions and to provide interoperability for medium-neutral linking such as OpenURL, Digital Object Identifiers (DOI), and Uniform Resource Names (URN).

Klemperer presented an update on current enhancements to ONIX for Serials. Described as a family of XML formats for communicating information about serial products and subscription information, ONIX has been a joint effort of EDItEUR, an international group coordinating development of the standards infrastructure for electronic commerce in the book and serials industries and the National Information Standards Organization (NISO). The three ONIX formats created for Serials are SOH (Online Holdings), SPS (Products and Subscriptions), and SRN (Release Notification).

Jewell described phase two of the DLF ERMI, emphasizing the two major directions for license expression standards and e-resource usage statistics. By promoting consistency in usage formatting, as well as automation of the process, protocols such as COUNTER (Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources) and SUSHI (Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative) could help solve the problem of harvesting and managing usage data from a growing number of providers. The DLF ERMI also continues in its efforts to standardize data terms for licenses in Electronic Resource Management Systems.

Sanville asked panelists to address the role of vendors in the e-book supply chain, emphasizing the transition of the scholarly book from print to electronic format and referencing our experiences with electronic journal publishing.

Susan Peterson expressed confidence that vendors have learned from the past and are on the right path regarding the distribution of e-books. She likened the development of e-books to the evolution of other book formats (hardbacks, paperbacks, and audio) and suggested that all of these formats will continue to play a role in meeting user needs. Vendors must ensure that libraries can purchase books in multiple formats with a one-time transaction.

Christopher Warnock described publishing trends in terms of generational phases. As distribution and storage costs decrease, it becomes more affordable to generate electronic content on a grand scale. Libraries will compete with search engines (e.g., Google) to organize and provide access to this content. Various e-book publishing and distribution models will evolve into standardized formats in response to the marketplace.

Rich Rosy agreed that we are in a fast-paced transition period that seems to be converging into common publication/delivery models with libraries and publishers alike demonstrating a commitment to e-books, and Bob Nardini echoed Peterson's belief that electronic and print formats will co-exist and be complementary. The challenge will be anticipating situations when it is most appropriate to offer print-only or e-only or both.

In the ensuing discussion several additional points were expressed: Licensing issues make it more complicated for libraries to acquire a single e-book than to purchase a single print book. While the book "package" may continue to be appropriate for some electronic texts, should we be thinking more in terms of access to individual information objects (e.g., chapters)? In any case, innovation and communication among publishers, vendors and libraries is essential to identifying barriers and solutions.

Collection Assessment: Best Practices in the 21st Century

Brian McCafferty, Wabash College

Five speakers addressed collection assessment and various methods for evaluating library collections in a program sponsored by the Quantitative Measures and Education Committees of ALCTS Collection Management and Development Section.

Peggy Johnson, University of Minnesota Libraries, began with an overview of collection assessment. A culture of assessment and evaluation serves managers, users, and other stakeholders by providing mechanisms for demonstrating accountability and improving decision-making and marketing. Collection assessment may evaluate how well a collection supports the needs of its users, or it may examine the strength of collections in their own terms or in comparison to other collections or lists. Methods of evaluation may be collection-based or use- and user-based. Both methods will involve the use of quantitative measures and qualitative research. Most important is for managers to choose measures that matter to their institutions, to keep assessment methods simple enough to be manageable, to be able to contextualize results, and to make assessment a continuing activity.

Lucy E. Lyons, Northwestern University, addressed methodologies for the analysis of monograph collections. The methodology one selects for collection analysis should fit the working environment in terms of staff skills, staff time, and finances. Lyons presented highlights of the results of analysis using WorldCat Collection Analysis software, but also demonstrated how vendor databases and even Amazon.com can be used to evaluate library collections. She explained how internal resources can be used to construct a report and discussed interpreting the results of various methodologies.

Paul Metz, Virginia Tech University Libraries, reported on Virginia's academic libraries use of Ulrich's serials analysis system and WorldCat Collection Analysis. Ulrich maintains a large database of information on serials, incorporating qualitative information from ISI and Katz. The academic libraries of Virginia decided to use Ulrich's analysis system for the purpose of identifying "at risk" titles to support a "last copy" strategy and to identify commonly held titles for possible electronic purchase.

The Ulrich analysis identified both a core group of "at risk" titles and a group of publishers whose titles were candidates for electronic purchase, though neither analyses led to consortial decisions regarding either "last copies" or group purchases of electronic journals. In the second part of his presentation Metz described how WorldCat Collection Analysis was used to compare collections of peer libraries and to identify important missing titles.

Bonnie Tijerina, Georgia Institute of Technology, discussed the concepts and methodologies of collection assessment as they pertain to electronic resources. Assessment of electronic resources is necessary in order to understand and justify their budgetary impact as well as to judge the value of the content, access, and format. Assessment is complicated by interdisciplinary, bundled, and possibly overlapping content, the need to consider issues of format and access, and abundant but not always standardized data. Despite the challenges they present, assessment of electronic resources should be conducted according to the same library-driven and use- and user-centered principles applied to assessment of other collections.

Corey Tucker, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, then described an ongoing project for the assessment of electronic resources for business education. This project, assessing periodical, reference and statistical databases, uses objective and subjective evaluation factors, value analysis, weighted evaluation factors, and cost/benefit analysis. Resources are evaluated on criteria of usability, content, support of the university curriculum, special features, and other local and product-specific factors.

Questioning Authorities: Adapting Authority Control to the Changing Needs of Library Users

Mary L. Mastraccio, MARCIVE, Inc.

"Questioning Authorities: Adapting Authority Control to the Changing Needs of Library Users" was the topic for the Authority Control Interest Group at ALA Annual in New Orleans. Although one speaker had to cancel at the last minute, the remaining four presentations demonstrated varied issues related to facilitating database searching through common-use terms. The methods presented included various ways of not doing things the way we have traditionally done them to a broader application of traditional authority control.

Louise Spiteri, Associate Professor, School of Information Management, Dalhousie University (Nova Scotia) presented findings on the how and why of collaborative tagging from an OCLC/ALISE research project, the Use of Collaborative Tagging in Public Library Catalogues. The study concluded that collaborative tagging could be used to augment controlled vocabularies such as LCSH, to assist libraries in producing reading lists, and to encourage library use through provision of personal information space related to library resources. Ross Singer, Application Developer, Library and Information Center, Georgia Institute of Technology, followed Spiteri and discussed using folksonomies to enhance controlled vocabularies. Singer observed that enabling tagging is relatively easy, but there is no guarantee that users will participate. He also noted that folksonomies may not be the best tool for academic communities and so a hybrid solution of associating proper terms with a given object should be considered.

In their presentation "Keeping Vernacular Fields Synchronized with Romanized Fields," Manon Theroux, Authority Control Librarian, Yale University Library, and John Reese, MARS Authority Control Product Manager, Backstage Library Works, shifted the focus to authority control when using vernacular headings. The presentation covered some of the technical aspects of using linked authorized and vernacular terms in bibliographic records. They demonstrated that automated authority control can be used when vernacular terms are present in bibliographic records but that manual review of each linked vernacular term is necessary.

Lastly, Beacher Wiggins, Director for Acquisitions & Bibliographic Access, Library of Congress, discussed the questioning process that the LC is involved in as they seek to improve their cataloging practice. Mr. Wiggins restated LC's decision to discontinue the practice of creating and using series authority records in order to improve processing time. In addition to the series headings, LC will review the practice of using pre-coordinated headings. As cataloging practices change to meet users' needs, so will authority control processes and practices.

Saving Sound, Part 2: Implementing an Audio Preservation Program

Mark F. Anderson, University of Iowa

Tom Clareson, Program Director for New Initiatives, PALINET, began this year's program by announcing that CDs from last year's program are still available for attendees who do not already have one. He described this second session as taking some components of a traditional preservation program (selecting and ranking materials to preserve and disaster recovery) and focusing on specific audio aspects such as intellectual property concerns and differences between analog and digital preservation.

Stephanie Lamson, Assistant Preservation Librarian, University of Washington Libraries, discussed selection issues and tools, prefacing her talk with the now-ubiquitous video clip of how not to handle a cylinder recording. She then described surveys such as the CLIR survey of state of audio recordings in research libraries and selection strategies such as the YASA document on selection criteria from 2003. She continued by covering other survey tools: Hannah Frost's Surveying Sound Recording Collections from 2003; Indiana University's FACET (Field Audio Collection Evaluation Tool); and the Audio and Moving Image Survey Tool from Columbia University.

Gina Minks, Imaging and Preservation Service Manager, Amigos Library Services and Charles Kolb, Senior Program Officer, Division of Preservation and Access, National Endowment for the Humanities, continued with a detailed description of intellectual property issues related to audio materials, referring often to the CD from last year's session. Recent changes to specific laws and the U.S. Code were particularly stressed.

Third to speak were Tara Kennedy, Preservation Field Services Librarian, Yale University and Bill Walker, current Imaging Field Services Officer, formerly Music Cataloger at Southern Methodist University, who discussed emergency physical recovery techniques for audio materials. The presenters noted that duplication and off-site storage are the best way to avoid permanently losing materials. Storage methods and recovery techniques were described in detail for a wide variety of analog and digital audio formats.

To conclude the session, Walker compared traditional disasters as seen in fires, floods, wind, dust, smoke and plumbing leaks with digital disasters - anything that prevents for an extended amount of time or permanently prevents an organization from accessing data (causing work to stop). He stressed that having a disaster plan and updating it often is the best way to preserve as many sound recordings as possible in the case of disaster.

ALCTS Forum on Digital Preservation

Tim Donohue, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Moderator Robert Kieft, Librarian of the College for Haverford College, introduced the discussion with a very entertaining "Don Waters [of Andrew W. Mellon Foundation] is worried" story. Because of his worries that libraries are not doing enough to preserve their e-content, Waters invited a group of influential librarians to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation offices in September 2005 to discuss the growing issue of electronic journal preservation. Out of this meeting came the consensus document "Urgent Action Needed to Preserver Scholarly Electronic Journals." The remainder of the forum revolved around revisiting and discussing the issues brought forth in this important document.

Gordon Tibbitts, President of Blackwell Publishing (USA), spoke briefly from a major publisher's point of view. After prefacing that he was "not speaking for all of Blackwell," Gordon stressed that libraries should be responsible for preserving their e-journals and e-content. Without naming names, he stated that most major publishers eventually do need to request back-copies of their own journals from libraries. In addition, Gordon expressed favor for community-based initiatives like LOCKSS and CLOCKSS (in which Blackwell participates) over publisher-provided software archives.

Finally, discussion was opened to the audience. Perspectives were voiced by librarians, other publishers, and even a few vendors. There was general agreement that solutions like LOCKSS and CLOCKSS work for larger publishers, while the thousands of smaller publishers lack the funding to participate. Others pointed out that it's too early to support and use just a single preservation solution, since no one knows which will work best. The session closed on a general call to institutions to step up to the plate and start promising what content they will be responsible for (so that everyone is not attempting to preserve everything).

ALCTS President's Program
Information Overload and the Quality of Your Life: Can a New Environmental Movement Restore Balance?

Rebecca Mugridge, Penn State University

Dr. David Levy, University of Washington Information School, gave a thoughtful presentation on the overwhelming world of information, and how we can slow down to more fully appreciate life. He referred to an article in Time magazine which questioned whether children are becoming "too wired," and which claimed that our obsession with multi-tasking is not healthy. Dividing our attention among multiple activities means that we do not do any as well as we could. Levy claimed that our lives are out of balance, and this has unintended consequences, such as physical and mental health problems, diminishing productivity, low job satisfaction, loss of social cohesion, and a lack of time for reflection.

Levy mentioned a 1945 article in Atlantic Monthly by Vannevar Bush in which Bush complained that there was too much information for anyone to stay current, and posed a solution to managing the problem: hypertext. Levy claimed that now, in a hypertext world, our problems with information overload have become worse. He referred to Leisure: the Basis of Culture by Joseph Pieper, which claims that the world of work is to blame for the lack of balance in our lives. Leisure is a form of stillness that involves a sense of receptive understanding, contemplation, and a cultivation of inner quiet. However, with the development of the Web, while we have created excellent tools for active research, there is no time for searching, researching, abstracting and concluding. The tools of hypertext have encouraged a philosophy of life that includes more, faster, better. Levy compares the pollution of the environment that Rachel Carson described in Silent Spring to the information pollution that is filling our minds and lives. Where is there room for silence and sanctuary?

Levy shared an advertisement that showed a picture of a man working in the stacks of a library; the caption read "in deep, halcyon repose." Levy asked where we find our balance--in a reading room, outdoors, through yoga, or during family dinners? He claimed that we have two states of mind: the doing or driven state, in which a broader sense of the present is missed, or the being state, in which there is a focus on accepting and allowing what is. However, our culture is giving us a different message. To illustrate, Levy showed another advertisement for a radio station that read "Don't drive around empty headed."

Finally, Levy discussed "deep ergonomics." He recommends the development of principles regarding the use of technology, the development of both calm and embedded technologies, and the study of the ecology of thinking. He is working with students' behavior with regard to technology and to try to increase the mindful use of technology to allow for greater time for reflection and silence.